Documents Show Elena Kagan’s Conflict of Interest on ObamaCare

Documents uncovered by a legal watchdog group prove Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan was involved in the Obama administration’s legal defense of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as “ObamaCare.”

Judicial Watch has released a number of administration communiqués that show Kagan, who was then Solicitor General, presided over the president’s response to lawsuits asserting the government health care bill is unconstitutional.

Advertisement - story continues below

Related Stories

On January 8, 2010, Brian Hauck, Senior Counsel to Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, wrote to Kagan’s deputy, Neal Katyal, asking for the office’s assistance in “how to defend against the inevitable challenges to the health care proposals that are pending.” Three minutes later, Katyal replied, “Absolutely right on. Let’s crush them. I’ll speak with Elena and designate someone.” After Katyal volunteered, Kagan responded, “You should do it.”[1]

A few hours later, Katyal updated Hauck, writing, “Brian, Elena would definitely like OSG [the Office of Solicitor General] to be involved in this set of issues.” Katyal added,”I will handle this myself, along with an Assistant from my office, (Name Redacted – BJ), and we will bring Elena in as needed.”(Emphasis added.)

The Justice Department continues to withhold a series of e-mails that would disclose Kagan’s exact role in the negotiations. However, it has turned over the Vaughn index, which describes the items being stonewalled in general terms. These include seven e-mails written from March 17-21, 2010. Kagan was copied on three e-mails that discuss “what categories of legal arguments may arise and should be prepared in the anticipated lawsuit.” Another four dealt with “expected litigation” against the health care law; Elena Kagan wrote one of the four being withheld.

Advertisement - story continues below

In the same week, Perrelli announced a White House meeting “to help us prepare for litigation.” Katyal wrote Kagan, “I think you should go, no?” Kagan ended the paper trail cold, responding, “What’s your phone number?”

Once Kagan had been nominated for the High Court, Katyal decided Kagan had never been involved in the proceedings in the least.

One year ago yesterday, Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler wrote an e-mail acknowledging Katyal was “point” (of reference) on defending ObamaCare, but asking him, “Has Elena been involved in any of that to the extent SG office was consulted?” Katyal responded, “No, she has never been involved in any of it. I’ve run it for the Office, and have never discussed the issue with her one bit.” (Does anyone innocent speak that way?) Katyal later insisted Kagan had been “walled off from Day One.”

The justices will soon hear two legal challenges from the states of Virginia and Florida, which already cleared lower courts.

Federal statute 28 U.S.C. 455 demands that a judge must step aside “in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned” or in which he (or she) “participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.”

By telling Katyal he “should do it,” Kagan appointed the point person who defended ObamaCare. Further e-mails from March 24 reveal Kagan was copied on the administration’s plan to coordinate with U.S. attorneys in fighting state lawsuits against ObamaCare. And she may have attended the administration’s meeting mentioned in the e-mail.

Frankly, it strains credulity to believe the president’s most important legal adviser provided no legal advice on this issue.

Kagan is regarded as politically savvy. While clerking for ultra-liberal Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kagan urged Thurgood not to allow the Supreme Court to hear cases if she believed the court would rule against her, creating Originalist precedent. For example, she advised Marshall to refuse the case of a female prisoner who wanted the state to pay for her abortion. Kagan worried the court would rule against the woman, writing, “This case is likely to become the vehicle that this court uses to create some very bad law on abortion and/or prisoners’ rights.” At Harvard and elsewhere, Kagan has been known for her smooth handling of competing groups, working them around to her way of thinking.